Imágenes de páginas
PDF

And never check'd by what impedes the
wise,
Believe, rush forward, and possess the prize.”
Cow PER's Truth.

Of the many extraordinary circumstances connected with Dr. Maltby's work, it is surely not one of the least surprising, that the ultimate bearing of his pamphlet is to extol the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge. What, then, is the reasonable inference? Does the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge maintain that the whole of the Bible is neither “ necessary nor intended for the use of all classes of mankind ; ” That “out of sixtysix books, not above seven in the Old Testament, nor above eleven in the New, appear to be calculated for the study or comprehension of the unlearned ” That “ the mass of mankind ought no more to expect to understand the prophecies of Ezekiel, or the Epistles of St. Paul, than the tragedies of AEschylus, or the Letters of Cicero and Pliny 2" and, by consequence, that many portions of the Scripture, appointed to be read in our churches, should never reach the ears of the poor? Would the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge propose to substitute for the entire copy of the Scriptures “a Volume judiciously selected from Cappe's Life of Christ”—the work of an avowed Socinian 2 Are these the arguments by which they would expect to recommend themselves to the patronage of a Christian public Are these the measures by which they intend to form the principles of the rising generation; to train them to all virtue and godliness of living 2 No: we are well persuaded that the Society will not lend themselves to so onworthy a system. The attack of Dr. Maltby on the Bible Society, is also an attack upon them : they, too, have dispersed the whole of the Scriptures for upwards of a century, without note or comment; and even to this hour, they circulate the Book of Genesis, and the Psalms, and the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, without one apparent

feeling of remorse, or any expectation of evil. Yet we know not by what rule of consistency some oppoments of the Bible Society could censure our conduct, if we should charge upon the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, the strange language which has been held by certain of its advocates. If an injudicious assertion, whether correctly reported or not is of very little consequence, should be attributed, even in the columns of a newspaper, to a friend of the Bible Society, some doughty controversialist is always at hand to visit the offence, not upon the individual merely, but also upon the institution: the Society itself seems to be considered as responsible for all the sentiments, or alleged sentiments, of all its friends. If the advocates of the Bible Society should adopt the same rule of judgment, is there any absurdity, whether of fact or reasoning, which they might not charge home upon the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge? The articles of their belief, and the divergencies of their reasoning, if extracted from the conflicting creeds and irregular sallies of their friends, would be highly amusing: and Dr. Maltby himself would add not a little to the entertainment. But into that subject we will not enter: and the only reason which has induced us even to mention it, is this: to display the extreme unfairness with which the Bible Society has been treated in certain recent publications; and, if possible, to introduce a better taste, sounder principles of reasoning, and a more correct distribution, whether of censure or of praise. Thereis, however, another view of the subject, which we are unwilling to omit. It has lately been very much the fashion to attack, as enthusiasts, as enemies to good sense and good works, a certain body of men, who are known by the title of Evangelical Clergymen. The way in which the attack is conducted is this: All who agree in some general principles, such as the doctrings 5 A 2 -

of original sin, justification by faith, and the necessity of spiritual regeneration, are classed together, whether they belong to the established church, the methodists, or the dissenters; whether they lived in this century or the last. In this mixed mass some individuals are discovered who have promulged very exceptionable opinions, or done very exceptionable things. These are selected as fair specimens of the opinions and conduct of the whole body, which, on this kind of evidence, is at once condemned as sharing in the guilt of the specified individuals. In this way the violence and the regicide principles of the Cromwellians, the antinomian dotages of Dr. Crisp, the irregularities and occasional enthusiasm of the founders of methodism, the disgusting coarsenesses of one living character, the wildnesses of another, and the buffooneries of a third, are all heaped on the heads of those whom, whether properly or not, it is the custom of the day to designate as evangelical clergymen. But is there any fairness in this? Is it not just as unfair as it would be to confound the whole of the opponents of this body together, as men marked with the same general character? How, for example, would the Bishops of London and Lincoln, Dr. Gaskin, Dr. Wordsworth, and many other active distributors of the Holy Scriptures, like to be confounded with Dr. Maltby in his hostility to the general circulation of these writings; or with Mr. Fellowes and the Barrister in their Socinian principles; merely because they happened to view certain subjects, such as the Bible Society and the evangelical clergy, in the same light? But is it more fair to make such men as Mr. Scott, or Mr. Basil Woodd, or Mr. Venn, or Mr. Cunningham, or Mr. Cooper, responsible for all that Dr. Crisp, or Mr. Whitfield, or Mr. Wesley, or Dr. Hawker, may have said or written ? “As ye would, then, that men should do unto you, even so do ye unto them, for this is the law and the prophets.”

In general, Dr. Maltby is very perspicuous: his grand principle is intelligible enough ; but there is one passage occurring (p. 49), of which we find it difficult to comprehend the drift. The passage we mean is that in which he tells us, that the Bible Society “ was originally planned, not for the benefit of churchmen as such—not for the benefit of dissenters as such—but for the ultimate, and what practically would be the separate, interests of an heterogeneous sect, who belong to both or to neither; but who would gladly employ the agency of churchmen, and of dissenters too, in promoting their own favourite views,and dis. seminating their peculiar doctrines." What is this heterogeneous mixture? Is it a new name for Unitarians? No : they would prefer Cappe's Life of Christ. Does it consist of a class of Frenchified philosophers, who dis. believe the Mosaic account of the Creation ? No: they would not circulate the Book of Genesis. Is it composed of persons, who disbe. lieve the doctrine of an over-ruling Providence : They surely would re. ject the writings of the Apostles, and the Prophets. Does it comprehend that non-descript race, which sances death to be an eternal sleep? These men disbelieve the doctrine of the resurrection, and would therefore expunge from their Bibles the [Epi. stle to the Corinthians, if it were cofensive on no other account, yet of its assertion of that doctrine. We have entered with some care upon the inquiry, but are utterly at a loss to discover this “ heterogeneous mixture;” and the early accounts of the Society, which have been lots before the world, afford us no ho in this intricate research. o

We wish that Dr. Maltby had throughout the whole of his pub. cation maintained more decisively those claims to candour and fair” which we believe he might go rally urge with justice. But wo is the purport of the declar." that he “by no means presumo." question the motives of the ""

part of those, who step forward to patronize the rising institution ?” What reason has he to question the motives of the rest ? We think also that Dr. Maltby would have consulted his reputation for candour and fairness, by extending some of his remarks to the opponents of the Bible Society, as well as to its defenders. We mean not to vindicate harshness, from whatever quarter it may proceed : but when Dr. Maltby next adverts to the subject of invective, we earnestly adWise him to begin with those who first set the example; who gave currency to accusations, which nothing but extreme ignorance, united to extreme irritation, could induce any man to advance; and who stignatised the friends of the Society, as if they were influenced by some of the worst motives which can operate upon the human mind. We will not pollute our pages by supPlying him with specimens; but when he next fancies himself to be “assailed with acrimonious rebuke,” we would request him to examine, whether these imaginary assailants are not in truth acting on the desensive; whether the darts, which are flung from the camp of those who are friendly to the “rising institution,” are not partly in return for the poisoned arrows which have been shot against themselves. It is time that the weapons of hostility should be laid aside. No wish has ever been shewn by the advocates of the Bible Society to inJure the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge; and it would have spared much pain to the friends of both, if the same spirit of forbearance and respect had been shewn by their opponents. But as these have in every instance been the aggressors, we cannot but rejoice that in every instance they have been defeated ; and that they have unwittingly built up the cause, which it was their hearty intention to destroy.

We would earnestly list our “voice to both for peace and co-operation. . In the ac

tual state of this nation, and of the world around us, we can spare neither of them. May they sit therefore in council together at home, and go forth hand in hand to evangelize the nations. May they arise upon our horizon, that in effect, which the twin stars were in the mythology of the heathen, signs of peace and deliverance.

[ocr errors]

Quorum sinul alba nautis, Stella refulsit, Desluit saxis agitatus humor: Concidunt venti, fugiuntoue nubes, Et minax (quod sic voluere) ponto Uuda recumbit.” Cunninghain, pp. 5, 6. Sirth Report of the Directors of the African Institution, read at the Annual General Meeting on the 25th March, 1812. To which are added, an Appendir and a List of Subscribers. London, Hatchard. 1812. Price 2s. 8vo. pp. 183. IN our review of the preceding Report of this excellent Institution (vol. for 1811, p. 428), we entered so largely into the discussion of some important questions connected with the progress of its grand design of amelicrating the condition of the African race, that we shall have little more to do on the present occasion, than to make our readers acquainted with the main facts which have been brought to light by the publication now before us. The first fact which meets us, is one of the most melanchóly description. The Slave Trade, under the protection of the Portuguese and Spanish flags, is said to have revived to a most enormous extent; and it is calculated, on data which have the appearance of being correct, that in the year 1810, no less than from seventy to eighty thousand Africans were carried from the coast of Africa into a state of bondage on the American continent. The actors in this tragedy, it is true, are many of them the subjects of Great Britain and America, and neither Spaniards nor Portuguese; but then it is the flag of Portugal, or of Spain, which screens them from detection and punishment, and which frustrates the benevolent intentions of our legislaof original sin, justification by faith, and the necessity of spiritual regeneration, are classed together, whether they belong to the established church, the methodists, or the dissenters; whether they lived in this century or the last. In this mixed mass some individuals are discovered who have promulged very exceptionable opinions, or done very exceptionable things. These are selected as fair specimens of the opinions and conduct of the whole body, which, on this kind of evidence, is at once condemned as sharing in the guilt of the specified individuals. In this way the violence and the regicide principles of the Cromwellians, the antinomian dotages of Dr. Crisp, the irregularities and occasional enthusiasm of the founders of methodism, the disgusting coarsenesses of one living character, the wildnesses of another, and the buffooneries of a third, are all heaped on the heads of those whom, whether properly or not, it is the custom of the day to designate as evangelical clergymen. But is there any fairness in this? Is it not just as unfair as it would be to confound the whole of the opponents of this body together, as men marked with the same general character How, for example, would the Bishops of London and Lincoln, Dr. Gaskin, Dr. Wordsworth, and many other active distributors of the Holy Scriptures, like to be confounded with Dr. Maltby in his hostility to the general circulation of these writings; or with Mr. Fellowes and the Barrister in their Socinian principles; merely because they happened to view certain subjects, such as the Bible Society and the evangelical clergy, in the same light? But is it more fair to make such men as Mr. Scott, or Mr. Basil Woodd, or Mr. Venn, or Mr. Cunningham, or Mr. Cooper, responsible for all that Dr. Crisp, or Mr. Whitfield, or Mr. Wesley, or Dr. Hawker, may have said or written ? “As ye would, then, that men should do unto you, even so do ye unto them, for this is the law and the prophets.”

In general, Dr. Maltby is very perspicuous: his grand principle is intelligible enough ; but there is one passage occurring (p. 49), of which we find it difficult to comprehend the drift. The passage we mean is that in which he tells us, that the Bible Society “was originally planned, not for the benefit of churchmen as such—not for the benefit of dissenters as such—but for the ultimate, and what practically would be the separate, interests of an heterogeneous sect, who belong to both or to neither; but who would gladly employ the agency of churchmen, and of dissenters too, in promoting their own favourite views,and disseminating their peculiar doctrines.” What is this heterogeneous mixture? Is it a new name for Unitarians? No : they would prefer Cappe's Life of Christ. Does it consist of a class of Frenchified philosophers, who dis. believe the Mosaic account of the Creation ? No: they would not circulate the Book of Genesis. Is it composed of persons, who disbe. lieve the doctrine of an over-ruling Providence : They surely would re. ject the writings of the Apostles, and the Prophets. Does it comprehend that non-descript race, which fancies death to be an eternal sleep? These men disbelieve the doctrine of the resurrection, and would therefore expunge from their Bibles the EP. stle to the Corinthians, if it were o fensive on no other account, yet of its assertion of that doctrine. We have entered with some care upon the inquiry, but are utterly at a los to discover this “ heterogeneous mixture;” and the early accounts o' the Society, which have been loss before the world, afford us no ho in this intricate research.

We wish that Dr. Maltby ho throughout the whole of his puble cation maintained more decisio those claims to candour and fairnë which we believe he might go rally urge with justice. But who is the purport of the declarito that he “by no means presum”." question the motives of the "

part of those, who step forward to patronize the rising institution ?” What reason has he to question the motives of the rest? We think also that Dr. Malthy would have consulted his reputation for candour and fairness, by extending some of his remarks to the opponents of the Bible Society, as well as to its defenders. We mean not to vindicate harshness, from whatever quarter it may proceed : but when Dr. Maltby next adverts to the subject of invective, we earnestly advise him to begin with those who first set the example; who gave currency to accusations, which nothing but extreme ignorance, united to extreme irritation, could induce any man to advance; and who stigmalised the friends of the Society, as if they were influenced by some of the worst motives which can operate. upon the human mind. We will not pollute our pages by supplying him with specimens; but when he next fancies himself to be "assailed with acrimonious rebuke,” we would request him to examine, whether these imaginary assailants are not in truth acting on the defensive; whether the darts, which are flung from the camp of those who are friendly to the “rising institution,” are not partly in return for the poisoned arrows which have been shot against themselves. It is time that the weapons of hostility should be laid aside. No wish has ever been shewn by the advocates of the Bible Society to injure the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge; and it would have spared much pain to the friends of both, if the same spirit of forbearance and respect had been shewn by their opponents. But as these have in every instance been the aggressors, we cannot but rejoice that in everv instance they have been defeated; and that they have unwittingly built up the cause, which it was their hearty intention to destroy.

We would earnestly lift our “voice to too, for peace and co-operation. . In the ac

tual state of this nation, and of the world around us, we can spare neither of them. May they sit therefore in council together at home, and go forth hand in hand to evangelize the nations. May they arise upon our horizon, that in effect, which the twin stars were in the Inythology of the leathem, signs of peace and deliverance.

-- Quorum sinul alba nautis, Stella refulsit, Defluit saxis agitatus humor: Concidunt venti, fugiuntoue nubes, Et tuinax (quod sic voluere) ponto Unda recumbit.” Cunningham, pp. 5, 6. Sirth Report of the Directors of the African Institution, read at the Annual General Meeting on the 25th March, 1812. To which are added, an Appendir and a List of Subscribers. London, Hatchard. 1812. Price 2s. 8vo. pp. 183. IN our review of the preceding Report of this excellent Institution (vol. for 1811, p. 428), we entered so largely into the discussion of some important questions connected with the progress of its grand design of amelicrating the condition of the African race, that we shall have little more to do on the present occasion, than to make our readers acquainted with the main facts which have been brought to light by the publication now before us. The first fact which meets us, is one of the most melanchóly description. The Slave Trade, under the protection of the Portuguese and Spanish flags, is said to have revived to a most enormous extent; and it is calculated, on data which have the appearance of being correct, that in the year 1810, no less than from seventy to eighty thousand Africans were carried from the coast of Africa into a state of bondage on the American continent. The actors in this tragedy, it is true, are many of them the subjects of Great Britain and America, and neither Spaniards nor Portuguese ; but then it is the flag of Portugal, or of Spain, which screens them from detection and punishment, and which frustrates the benevolent intentions of our legisla

« AnteriorContinuar »